Re: store different tables in different locations

> we use postgresql to store  so little data as only 600MB or so, while
> for this,
> we have to do  consume some efforts on managing and maintaining the
> database.  I am not sure whether it is a good and wise design.
> Is there any more wiser design for this case?
In my case postgresql is like "fire and forget". Once installed it needs
to be vacuumed regularly. Thats all. Well, backups also. What
maintenance do you do?

> For some reason the size of database is asked to restrict to 900MB.
> So I have to make efforts to make sure that its size is less than 900MB.
> Maybe I should not do it. :)
It depends on how much data you want to store. You said you have 400
machines in the network, so 900Mb limits you to ~2Mb per machine. You
decide if thats enough.